1. Title: Food, Inc.; Director: Robert Kenner; Release Year: 2008
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film highlights the ideas that our food production system is unsustainable. Our food practices are causing serious problems not only for our environment, but for farmers who are under the control of food companies, and for those who are consuming these food products. In addition, it describes how most Americans do not know where their food comes from or how it is produced. It is a “world deliberately hidden from us.” (Food, Inc.)
The film focuses on the meatpacking; how these practices consume unsustainable amounts of fossil fuel, in addition to how unhealthy our meat is in America. It then touches on our dependence on corn and the depth of our use of the crop.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Chicken: There are only a few companies that control the chicken production in the country. Chickens are kept in unhealthy conditions for both the animals and the farmers. For example, one farmer is now allergic to all types of antibiotics because of being in such close contact with thousands of chickens that she must feed antibiotics. It is a risk to her health to make her living as a chicken farmer. Companies force farmers into huge debts. It costs over $250,000 to build a poultry house. Then companies demand upgrades and if the farmers do not comply, they will lose their contract with the company. The farmers are forced to continue to get loans from the bank and in turn continue to accumulate up debt.
Beef: Beef is fed a diet that consists of corn while their natural diet should be of mainly grasses. The corn creates excess gas in their stomachs and allows E-coli to form. The E-coli is released in their manure. These cows stand in their own and each other’s manure many times up to their knees. The E-coli is thus spread from one cow to all of the cows. After the cows are slaughtered, a very unclean process, and cut up. The manure is not cleaned off and can then get mixed in with the meat that will be sold and consumed. This process is deemed acceptable by the FDA. E-coli causes disease and death when consumed by humans.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I liked watching about Carol, the chicken farmer for Perdue. She was willing to let cameras into her chicken house. In addition, the hidden cameras set up that showed how the chickens were collected in the middle of the night was effecting in demonstrating how little respect the companies have not only for the products (the chickens) but for the farmers. As Carol described, the farmers are treated like slaves. The cycle of debt that the farmers are in due to the demands placed on them by the chicken production companies was explained very well in her section as well.
I was also compelled by the chicken farmer who ran his own small farm that was completely organic. His interests were genuinely in the production of good, healthy products. He was very convincing in explaining that he would not “sell out.” He had no interest in his product ever being on a Walmart shelf. He did not want a big business. I felt that was very refreshing.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
As heartless as this may sound, I was not compelled by the woman whose son young son had died due to E-coli. I felt that she was a good tool for the film to demonstrate how one woman’s misfortune had fueled her fire to stand up for consumer rights and better food production but I feel that the way for change to come about in such a complex system is for individuals to have a passion for change without having a specific traumatic experience driving that passion. In order to fix it, people need to care enough about an issue before they are negatively effected with something devastating such as the death of a loved one. One problem is that not enough people realize the devastating effects of the issues this film focuses on before it’s too late.
6. What audience does this film best address? Why?
The film is meant to address the average American consumer. It clearly indicates the problems caused by our food production practices and the risks we are at if these practices continue. Although some of the clips of the animals are graphic, I think they are done with enough discretion that most people would be able to handle them but still have been impacted by the images. It is meant to alarm the viewer enough to remember what he or she learns from the film.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I would have liked to see more emphasis put on how the American practices compare to food production in other countries, specifically, European countries. It would have been interesting to see how our European counterparts conduct their food practices and what problems they face as compared to Americans.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective?
The film encourages consumers first and foremost to be informed; to understand where their food is coming from. Consumers should buy organic or local products.
9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references)
The film has inspired me to look further in the hazards or origins of grain feeding cattle for consumption. The film mentions how disruptive a corn diet is for cows. In fact, cows need to be slowly introduced to a corn based diet slowly or else it will kill them. One article I found made the point that the amount of antibiotics needed to rapidly increase the growth of cows increases the number of drug resistant bacteria. The article also notes that many times “corn-fed” beef is actually advertised and viewed as being a better kind of beef. This is one of the points in the film: that Americans are unaware of how their food is produced and what health implications the processes have on consumers.
In addition, I went to the Food, Inc. website and read more about the issues that they present. I looked up some of the information they had posted about putting nutrition information on restaurant food menus so that people are slightly more informed about their food choices. Twenty three states have at least proposed the idea. In New your, it has been passed and implemented in New York City and Westchester County. It has been passed in Nassau, Ulster, Albany, and Schenectady Counties and been proposed in Rockland County. The only other places in the country that is has been implemented as of Feb 2010 other than the two counties in New York are in Philadelphia and King County, Washington.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film highlights the ideas that our food production system is unsustainable. Our food practices are causing serious problems not only for our environment, but for farmers who are under the control of food companies, and for those who are consuming these food products. In addition, it describes how most Americans do not know where their food comes from or how it is produced. It is a “world deliberately hidden from us.” (Food, Inc.)
The film focuses on the meatpacking; how these practices consume unsustainable amounts of fossil fuel, in addition to how unhealthy our meat is in America. It then touches on our dependence on corn and the depth of our use of the crop.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Chicken: There are only a few companies that control the chicken production in the country. Chickens are kept in unhealthy conditions for both the animals and the farmers. For example, one farmer is now allergic to all types of antibiotics because of being in such close contact with thousands of chickens that she must feed antibiotics. It is a risk to her health to make her living as a chicken farmer. Companies force farmers into huge debts. It costs over $250,000 to build a poultry house. Then companies demand upgrades and if the farmers do not comply, they will lose their contract with the company. The farmers are forced to continue to get loans from the bank and in turn continue to accumulate up debt.
Beef: Beef is fed a diet that consists of corn while their natural diet should be of mainly grasses. The corn creates excess gas in their stomachs and allows E-coli to form. The E-coli is released in their manure. These cows stand in their own and each other’s manure many times up to their knees. The E-coli is thus spread from one cow to all of the cows. After the cows are slaughtered, a very unclean process, and cut up. The manure is not cleaned off and can then get mixed in with the meat that will be sold and consumed. This process is deemed acceptable by the FDA. E-coli causes disease and death when consumed by humans.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I liked watching about Carol, the chicken farmer for Perdue. She was willing to let cameras into her chicken house. In addition, the hidden cameras set up that showed how the chickens were collected in the middle of the night was effecting in demonstrating how little respect the companies have not only for the products (the chickens) but for the farmers. As Carol described, the farmers are treated like slaves. The cycle of debt that the farmers are in due to the demands placed on them by the chicken production companies was explained very well in her section as well.
I was also compelled by the chicken farmer who ran his own small farm that was completely organic. His interests were genuinely in the production of good, healthy products. He was very convincing in explaining that he would not “sell out.” He had no interest in his product ever being on a Walmart shelf. He did not want a big business. I felt that was very refreshing.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
As heartless as this may sound, I was not compelled by the woman whose son young son had died due to E-coli. I felt that she was a good tool for the film to demonstrate how one woman’s misfortune had fueled her fire to stand up for consumer rights and better food production but I feel that the way for change to come about in such a complex system is for individuals to have a passion for change without having a specific traumatic experience driving that passion. In order to fix it, people need to care enough about an issue before they are negatively effected with something devastating such as the death of a loved one. One problem is that not enough people realize the devastating effects of the issues this film focuses on before it’s too late.
6. What audience does this film best address? Why?
The film is meant to address the average American consumer. It clearly indicates the problems caused by our food production practices and the risks we are at if these practices continue. Although some of the clips of the animals are graphic, I think they are done with enough discretion that most people would be able to handle them but still have been impacted by the images. It is meant to alarm the viewer enough to remember what he or she learns from the film.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I would have liked to see more emphasis put on how the American practices compare to food production in other countries, specifically, European countries. It would have been interesting to see how our European counterparts conduct their food practices and what problems they face as compared to Americans.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective?
The film encourages consumers first and foremost to be informed; to understand where their food is coming from. Consumers should buy organic or local products.
9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references)
The film has inspired me to look further in the hazards or origins of grain feeding cattle for consumption. The film mentions how disruptive a corn diet is for cows. In fact, cows need to be slowly introduced to a corn based diet slowly or else it will kill them. One article I found made the point that the amount of antibiotics needed to rapidly increase the growth of cows increases the number of drug resistant bacteria. The article also notes that many times “corn-fed” beef is actually advertised and viewed as being a better kind of beef. This is one of the points in the film: that Americans are unaware of how their food is produced and what health implications the processes have on consumers.
http://www.johnrobbins.info/blog/grass-fed-beef/
In addition, I went to the Food, Inc. website and read more about the issues that they present. I looked up some of the information they had posted about putting nutrition information on restaurant food menus so that people are slightly more informed about their food choices. Twenty three states have at least proposed the idea. In New your, it has been passed and implemented in New York City and Westchester County. It has been passed in Nassau, Ulster, Albany, and Schenectady Counties and been proposed in Rockland County. The only other places in the country that is has been implemented as of Feb 2010 other than the two counties in New York are in Philadelphia and King County, Washington.
http://www.foodincmovie.com/
http://www.cspinet.org/menulabeling/
http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/ml_map.pdf